Search Posts
I'm looking for advice on how my fellow GMs handle PCs with animal companions. I find it's a tricky row to hoe in enforcing/interpreting the RAW on how animal companions function vs. a player's assumptions. More often than not animal companions are treated as extensions of the controlling PC, acting with pinpoint precision and always following orders perfectly despite having minimal intelligence and being distinct beings. Rather than being a companion they become effectively a second PC under the player's complete control. I'm disallowing stuff like the ordering the PC moving into position, readying and action, ordering the companion to flank, and then both of them attacking with because that sort of complex maneuvering is clearly outside the parameters of the RAW, but where does the line get drawn? An example that came up in my last session. The PCs were faced with an otyugh. It was in a small room connected to a larger one by a narrow corridor in which there were two PCs and no room to pass by them. The PC with a animal companion ordered it to attack the otyugh. In order to do so it would need to go down the corridor, risk taking an AoA, and then have to make and acrobatics check to move through the otyugh to get to the other side of it. I ruled it was too difficult for the animal companion to do, the player argued it's the only way for the companion to fulfill the order to attack and so should do so. I don't want to completely gut the efficacy of the animal companion but at the same time I don't want to simply hand wave it away and effectively give the player two PCs. This situation will be exacerbated when the PC is allowed to increase the companion's INT to 3, at which point it can understand language and spoken commands. All advice is welcome.
This supposes that all issues with the game are in the play of it though. In my experience this is not the case. There are more than enough problems with the rules and the rulebook themselves that sour the experience long before the rubber hits the road. I have dozens of issues with many of the rules and systems in the game, but a big one for me a far more nebulous. I love reading an RPG rulebook and having my imagination set start effervescing with possibility as I read. I know this is a playtest and not final but it is like reading a textbook or the service manual for a surplus Soviet diesel engine. Instead of firing the imagination it is a boring, tedious slog. Rather than feeling like I am learning the system that will let me experience wondrous adventures I feel like I am studying for an exam.
I am thinking perhaps I misunderstood something somewhere along the way. My understanding was the intent of P2 was to streamline the game. I'm not seeing how this contributes to that goal. Personally I have little interest in a game that is a crazy-quilt of complex -subsystems.
Not sure I'm a fan of trinkets. I get that they're cheap, but that's a lot of little one-use items to clutter up a character sheet and erase and write in again and say, "Wait, did I forget to cross out that trinket after I used it, or have I not used it yet?" Then don't write it on your character sheet.
I have long said that the greatest strength of Pathfinder is there is a rule for everything, but the greatest weakness of Pathfinder is there is a rule of everything. For every time the PF rules allowed you to know exactly how to adjudicate a particular situation it seemed like there were three rules standing in the way of you doing something cool. Instead of the rules saying "here is how you can do this amazing thing" they more often than not said "here's why you cannot". I support the 3F model suggested above.
I am currently playing a haunted-cursed Oracle with the Dark Tapestry mystery in a "Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition" home game. One possible future plot thread could lead to the possibility of removing the haunted curse, but I'm not sure I like the idea of simply removing the curse without there being some sort of detriment or loss associated with it. So I'm curious as to what ideas you folks might have as to an appropriate negative repercussion associated with removing the curse.
James, I've two topics. Topic the first: A huge pet peeve of mine has always been spells and abilities that remove a player from playing the game–paralysis, fear, etc. This is especially true of 3e/OGL-based systems (of which Pathfinder is one) where combat takes a long time. Anything that take a player out of playing the game for an hour or more, especially in a PFS scenario with an assumed three-to-four hour time slot, is not a good thing. Topic the second: Many times I've run up against scenarios where and enemy does not represent a substantial threat to a party of even moderately capable adventurers but Said enemy is given a passel of abilities–DR and concealment are common ones–that do nothing to increase the challenge of the encounter but rather to artificially increase the length, often frustrating or boring players whose PC's lack the necessary skill/feat/McGuffin to overcome or bypass the speed bump. I am curious as to your thoughts on these points. Cheers.
Good point. I guess it was the graphical Wizard/Sorcerer header that jumped out and put the bug in my ear. This is all just me being a doofus.
Pardon the typo in the title. I know, but the Sorcerer likewise casts spells from the Wizard list but they made a combined Wizard/Sorcerer header for the ACG. The lack of such a header for the Cleric/Oracle, and IIRC no mention of the Oracle in the spell descriptions either, is what makes me wonder.
Additional context: Mergy is a player in the campaign. The way we played it out was deadly enough without the creature also taking instant fall damage. I do like the idea of a winged creature needing to hover, but that would only require a DC 10 fly check to not plummet to the ground. True enough. Maybe not even plummet, maybe just pressed to the ground without additional damage. Perhaps moving a sky-pinned enemy around at, say, 60'/rnd? Personally, I liked the idea of pinning it against the side of a building. But that's just me.
Slightly more context. Adventure Path Spoiler:
We're playing Rise of the Runelords Anniversary. The flying creature in question was the large red dragon attacking Sandpoint. I kinda liked the holding it in place and pinning it to the sky - it had a Vaderesque force-choke vibe to it. This PC has a long history of just about every enemy saving against his spells all the time, so it was a real personal victory. I really wanted to slam-dunk the thing against the ground like I was doing a touchdown dance.
Interesting rules question came up last night in our game. My Oracle used Telekinesis to grapple a flying creature, but none of us could really suss out exactly how that should play out. Does it stop dead in mid air or does it plummet to the ground? What about on the subsequent pin? We played it as the former, that it was held in place by the power of spell, and then was effectively pinned to the sky, but I'm curious if anyone has better insight on how this is supposed to play out by RAW. Also, while I'm at it, what is the effective CMD of a telekinetic grapple for the grappled enemy to try to break? The spell only lists the CMB. We ruled it as the spell's CMB+10.
'Grats to the top 32, and 4 alternates. Well done, all. I'm surprised how many of the top 36 I didn't see come up during voting. Weird. Guess someone has to get stuck sorting the dregs. ;) Keep up the good work. Looking forward to seeing what you cats whip up for the next round.
Based off SKR's post, he really doesn't care about the objection and is basically telling us, "You don't like? Well, tough."C'mon folks, refluffing is not difficult. Not really. Based on SKReyn's post what he's really saying is "we get that some people object to it, but from a design standpoint that's not a good enough reason to change it".
Ah, the issue here was entirely mine. I was looking at this class through the very narrow aperture of a barroom brawler type than the wider breadth of all fisticuffs-fighters. Mostly, I think, because it played to a PC concept I have wanted to play. And yes, I do get dizzy sometimes with the whole world revolving around me. Finally getting to do a playtest this evening. Hopefully will have some decent feedback afterwards.
Finally got a chance this evening to sit down with the playtest document and two things struck me immediately upon reading the brawler entry: - The inclusion of monk weapons really isn't in line with the flavour of the class - something along the lines of Improvised Weapon Mastery would be an excellent fit as a class ability
Also, I am wondering what happens if the party succeeds in getting the empathy point regarding the commoners, decides not to go into the Worldwound, but then earns the empathy point in rageweed. Any thoughts? My reading of "If the PCs have gathered fewer than 2 Empathy Points or decided not to rescue the soldiers..." (emphasis mine) that either of those would lead to the "bad" ending. The party needn't have both and the former condition doesn't negate the latter.
Part of it could be a holdover bias from the heyday of 3rd ed D&D. There was a vast amount of third-party stuff that was absolute shovelware drek. There is more than enough solid material put out from Paizo that I've not delved into 3PP material for Pathfinder so I cannot comment on its merits, but were I to publish a game right now I would most likely use the Pathfinder engine.
Following the rules of English, "chire" is the least-accurate pronunciation possible. No English word beginning with "sch" is pronounced "ch", and an "e" at the end would be required for the "ire" sound in the absence of any preceding vowels. The notion that it can be pronounced any way you want doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Even if it is an author's invention he or she clearly had a specific notion in mind of the name he wanted and the pronunciation thereof, else every invented name would simply be a blank followed by "make up whatever name you want". I didn't spend all day worrying about it. It was just a simple question that occurred to me while reading "The Wardstone patrol" and Siege of the Diamond City". I'd never come across them before. Not every question one asks is an indication of an obsession. My first instinct was "sheer" and, in the absence of any official contradictory information, I'll go with that.
By its nature, time is a factor in a PFS game. Players have to devote even a small amount of their efforts to trying to dial-in on target numbers like DC and AC wastes some of that valuable time. We're already dealing with much of the game on a numbers-based meta-level I see little value in obfuscating a few of them, particularly when not doing so would facilitate quicker play. The more efficiently everyone at the table can play the numbers-based elements of the game like combat and skill use the more time can be spent on the elements that get short-shrift like story, plot, and characterization.
That's regarding the Pistolero/Mysterious Stranger build though. Yes Mike says it is based on a loophole but rather than closing the loophole in general he simply disallowed this specific archetype combination that relied on it. I was told by someone that Mike had made a definitive "no" statement regarding the stacking of gun training and pistol training damage but I cannot find any such post or statement. Given how frequently I see this issue discussed I'm surprised it didn't make it into the latest changes in the FAQ.
I'm going to choose them ahead of time though I'm prepping two different versions of the order: one that leans more towards combat and one that is RP/skill heavy. I'm sure I'll modify or ignore the preset order though once the rubber hits the road. I was also thinking that since there's one encounter that takes place right there where they start at the Starrise Spire, I might just start Act 2 with that one regardless of other considerations... Good idea. Yoink! I noticed an oddity while rereading the scenario last night. Act 2 kicks off by saying that everyone hears Thurl's lodge explode but A9 make no mention of such an explosion. I wonder if it would be kosher to combine A9 and A2, to make it that an explosion did indeed occur at the lodge and the looters are ransacking it rather than a random bank.
I've been reading my test copy, (since I'm running it), and found a typo(?) that is causing me confusion: Agreed. One cannot thank skilled editors or proofreaders enough. There is a saying that most creatives know all too well: fools and children should never see a job half-done. I cannot count the number of times I've had to patiently explain to the someone - often for the sixth or seventh time - that a block of text or an image was only a placeholder. I think this is going to be a truly spectacular scenario when it's done. Every encounter fires my imagination and I cannot wait to run it.
I've been reading my test copy, (since I'm running it), and found a typo(?) that is causing me confusion: I'm assuming it will be exhaustively proofread and edited prior to final release. I'm only 13 pages into reading it and I've found significant typos, repetitions, omissions, and just flat-out mistakes on virtually every page so far. Speaking as both a graphic designer and a writer it is virtually impossible to see your own errors after a while. All these errors that jump off the page to a new set of eyes are simply invisible to someone who's been staring at the same text for hours, days, or even weeks. Until you go to press, that is. As soon as a document comes back from the printers you see every error immediately.
|
Pathfinder Society GM. 109 posts (116 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters. 